Christian
Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at nine o'clock, Eastern Time. The number is 1-712-432-0075
and the pin is 149939# (9 pm EST). Wednesday’s number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin
is 41875# (8 pm,
Eastern) or tune in on Wednesday at Talkshoe.com at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=41875&cmd=tc

Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s
call at the following website:

Howard approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group.
Send potential posting to Howard.

Note: questions to Howard are now
submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to Gemini Research rather
than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple
of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs.

*********************

Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham
and Howe.

When you aren’t talking please mute your
phone!!

Especially, don’t walk away from your phone
while it’s unmated. If you were near the phone in that situation
you’d hear the callers screaming at you to mute!!!

It would be best if you mute your phone
when you first come on, then un-mute it when you want to talk and
then re-mute it.

You can use the *6 button on your phone or use the phone’s mute
button

Speaker phones and cell phones are not desirable as they can chop
up the call badly occasionally.

If you are recording the call and leave the phone unintended, please
mute!!!!!

Note, at various times
some people left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio
into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult
for all.

When you are not muted be careful of making noise such as breathing
hard into the phone’s microphone or rubbing the mouthpiece or not
reducing extraneous noise across the room. Cell phones can pick
up wind noise when used outside and also if not in a primary reception
zone can couple noise into the call.

Excessive echoes and noise will terminate the conference call.

Cell phones and speaker phones can cause echoes.

Keep the call quiet, don’t make Howard climb out of his mailbox
and bop you one.

*******************************************************************

Note: the telephone lines are usually quite noisy and therefore
it would be prudent to slow your speech down otherwise your words
and meaning will be lost.

Suggestion:

Get a phone with a privacy or mute button. This is much more convenient
than star-6 and more rapid to use. It can also be used as a cough
button since it can be used rapidly. Try it, you’ll like it.

City of Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d 8 (1955). Permitted Jersey City to sue its former mayor for restitution of money allegedly extorted from city employees.

*****************************************************

Start

*****************************************************

{ 02:04:11.004}

[Howard]I’ve been thinking about things that have happened in the
past recently. When we were talking in the last couple of years
about the Constitution of the United States establishing a right
of people in America to have and own and self-regulate their private
property it was amazing to me how many people called or wrote to
us and asked us what do you mean by private property—another reason
why I have no use for education. If you have your children in school
you should take them out right now because the longer they stay
there the dumber they’re going to get.

You mean to tell
me that people in America in this day and age with all
this phenomenal amount of education that we have, have no realization
of what private property is.

You don’t even
know what that means? I got to say that there’s not too much that
amazes me anymore.

There’s not too
much that upsets me anymore for that, indeed, did upset me. So as
I thinking about that I was thinking we’ve been talking about breach
of the trust and breach of fiduciary duty of the government as trustees
and, geez, I wonder if people even realize what the word, breach,
means, what breach of the trust means. Maybe we should go over this.
It’s very possible that thanks to the education we have that didn’t
teach us much of anything that we really should know that people
would not understand the real meaning of these kinds of words.

So maybe I should
just take one night and go back to the law dictionary and read the
definitions of these words because whatever it may have meant in
the past they have a meaning for it today that they’re applying
and that is what they respect in law when it’s brought up and if
you can’t explain to a judge what it means when he…A judge may say to you, ‘ok, you filed this suit for breach
of trust against the government official, what do you mean breach
and if you can’t explain what a breach is the judge is going to
say, ‘ok, I can see you don’t know what you’re doing—this case is
dismissed,’ and you’re going to lose the case because these people
are very tricky and very dirty and they will use little things like
that to get around you. So maybe it’s important that we discern
a meaning that they apply.

So let me go into
this. I’m going to quote right from Blacks 5th edition
law dictionary.

The word, breach,
it says, the breaking or violating of a law, right, obligation,
engagement or duty.’

Now, the word,
duty, is a very broad term.

As I commented
earlier when one of those e-mails was talking about Title 18 of
the United States Code, a number of the different code around the
country that cover criminal acts have a criminal punishment as a
criminal violation that can be punished for as breach of duty and
that maybe the only one you’ll find in some states’ criminal codes
for breach of fiduciary duty or breach of trust. It may not spell
it out in all those terms. It may be just one simple little criminal
act of breach of duty.

Duty’s an important
word and a very broad term which covers things like violation of
the law, violation of a particular right that is guaranteed, violation
of an obligation which would be what the law says and somebody did
not do what the law said, violation of an engagement which means
the violation of a contract or an agreement of any kind. And every
one of them established a duty but it is the breaking or violating
of laws, rights, obligations, engagements or duty either by a commission
or some act or by the omission of something that by law they should
have done. It exists where one party to any kind of a contract fails
to carry out the terms, promise or condition of the contract.

Now, let’s talk
about the word, contract, for a minute. A trust is a contract. Any
kind of a trust, at all, is a contract. Any kind of an agreement
that one person will do something for another person is in the form
of a contract. Now, in order to be a full-fledged contract there
has to be an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration on the part
of both parties. Somebody’s got to give something of value in return
for something of value that was offered but that is not necessary
that there be a consideration in order for there to be an agreement
which is similar to a contract. If there’s an offer and acceptance
then it constitutes a contract and it’s called a quasi-contract
which means an artificial or phony contract but the law will enforce
a quasi-contract as though it were real.

So, isn’t that
interesting? Even though it’s not real they will enforce it as though
it is real. So, any form a contract—well, a trust is always in the
form of a contract.

The Constitution
of the United States
constitutes a contract between the government and the American people
that they will establish a government and they will do certain things
in that government and it was all spelled out in the Constitution
and that established a trust situation for the government. They
are in a trustee position to look out for us and protect us because
of the words in the Constitution that established that contract
between the government and the American people. And when they don’t
do it, it is a breach of their trust duty.

The word, breach,
as I’ve just said to you is the breaking or violating of the law
or the right of an obligation or an engagement or a duty either
by the commission or the omission. If they don’t do what they’re
supposed to do they omitted and are guilty of the breach. If they
do something that they’re not supposed to do which would be the
commission then that might well be the commission of a crime and
as was well brought out in that one e-mail, tonight, about Title
18 there are criminal acts in there that relate to breach of the
trust.

They can be brought
or they can be used as an exhibit in a case of breach of the trust
that is a civil issue.

They don’t have
to be brought in a criminal arena because you probably won’t get
the attorney general’s office to do anything for you.

They’re there to
protect the government and their profit making rackets.

They’re not there
to protect the American people like they’re supposed to be. None
of government, today, is seems to be doing what it’s supposed to
be doing and protecting the interest and rights and property of
the American people from our body right on down to every last little
thing that we own that they’re supposed to protect and our right
to acquire more things and they’re not protecting it, they’re getting
in the way of it. They’re breaching their fiduciary duty as trustees
to protect us under the contract that they have through the Constitution
of the United States. And
the state governments are doing the same thing because their constitutions
are written in very similar manner and form to the way the United
States Constitution is written and guaranteeing the same protection
to the people.

So it matters not
whether it’s a state officer that breaches the trust or a federal
officer that breaches the trust. They’re either doing it by the
commission of their acts or by the omission of the things that they’re
supposed to do. And it’s the breaking or violating of the law, the
right, the obligations, the engagements or most important the duties
and the duties are spelled out in the state and federal constitutions.
This is what they’re breaching. The term, breach, exists where one
party to a contract fails to carry out the terms or the promise
or the conditions of that contract. Well, the promise is the most
important part because in every contract there has to be a promise
to do something.

That’s where the
offer comes in. I promise to run a government for you that will
be in a constitutional manner. If I breach that promise then I’m
in breach of that duty and I should be removed from office. I would
think that if I’m going to take that office then I’d best know what
that contract means. Well, I don’t know how many times I have heard
said by politicians, lawyers and judges that we don’t use the Constitution
anymore. Every one of those scum should be sued for breach of their
fiduciary duty.

Every time they
say it, if you can have a witness with you when they say something
like that to you, you’ve really got a good case because you got
it backed up by a witness that heard it, not one that you told it
to. That’s not proper under the rules of evidence. That’s hearsay
evidence when you told somebody else that somebody said something,
that somebody else cannot repeat it and verify it because it’s hearsay
when they heard it from you. You need a witness with you any time
you’re confronted by government people and it wouldn’t hurt you
a bit to ask them if they understand the Constitution and apply
your rights under something like the 4th and 5th
amendment to protect my houses, my papers, and my chattels and my
rights of property that government will not infringe upon them by
taking them without just compensation.

And these idiots
will tell you, ‘no, we don’t pay any attention to the Constitution,
that doesn’t mean anything anymore.’ Boy, have you got them. Lead
them into the trap by asking them the right questions and having
a witness to verify that they answered you the way they will. Anyway,
that’s what the word, breach, means. It’s a very short little definition,
four lines and one extra word and it doesn’t take much to comprehend
what it said. I just explained it to you. Now, the word, breach
of trust, is a little bit longer definition but it’s right in line
with what I just told you the word, breach, means—breaking the law,
not fulfilling their duty.

Breach of trust
is any act done by a trustee contrary to the terms of his trust
or in excess of his authority.

Boy, oh boy, the
health care bill is in excess of their authority. They have no authority
to get involved in the private people’s health at all. Anyway, that’s
just one interesting little comment. Anyway, it’s any act done by
a trustee that is contrary to the terms of his trust or in excess
of his authority and to the detriment of the trust or the wrongful
omission by a trustee of any act required by him by the terms of
the trust, also, the wrongful misappropriation by the trustee of
any funds or property which had been lawfully committed to him in
a fiduciary character. See how fiduciary duty and breach of the
trust go hand in glove—they go right together. Every violation by
a trustee of a duty which equity lays upon him…

Now, by golly,
equity is a big and I mean big area of law to study and I haven’t
covered it all. Now, I keep finding more and more stuff on equity.
People are sending me some more information recently on equity,
things that I didn’t even know about that relate equity and how
equity controls the law. It is really up to us to try to learn how
some of this applies so specifically to what they’re doing. But
every violation by a trustee of his duty which equity lays upon
him whether willful or fraudulent or done through negligence or
arising through a mere oversight and forgetfulness is a breach of
the trust. In other words, it’s not easy for these people in a trustee
position to get around a claim that they have breached their trust
position especially government and things that they’ve been doing
here in the last 100 years, I guess, or more. It goes on to say,
the term therefore includes
every omission and commission in the carrying out of the trust according
to its terms of the care and diligence in protecting and investing
the trust property and of using perfect good faith. Remember
some of the cases that we’ve read parts of. They brought those very
words up and said that the trustee breached his fiduciary duty simply
because he did not act with honesty and good faith. Anyway, it goes
on to say, a violation by
the trustee of any duty which he owes to the beneficiary…Now, there’s the most important statement in the whole
thing.A violation by the trustee
of any duty—remember, going back to the definition of the word,
breach, any duty that he owes to us, the American peoplewho are the beneficiaries of this public trust.

There seems to
be a concept among these educated morons we have, lawyers, judges
and politicians…Any act by any of these government officials that proposes
to give you benefits, to make things nicer to you or provide you
with things that the Constitution did not authorize government to
provide or to become involved in at all. According to these politicians
they’re just looking out for us, the beneficiaries. Well, I’m not
sure which one of us are the beneficiaries that they’re talking
about. It is as one of those e-mails that Dave was reading today
about the lazy people who won’t get off their duffs and go out and
earn their own way in life? They’re going to look out for them but
they’re going to take—and this was a big thing this week—they’re
going to tax the rich.

There’s not enough
tax money there to run the government for 141 days if they tax the
rich 100% of their income and they couldn’t get away with taxing
the rich 100% of their income. So, no matter what kind of a tax
they increase on the rich all it is, is a taking from one group
of people that work and giving it to another group of people who
are lazy and won’t work. That is a breach of their fiduciary duty
and their trust duty to look out for all of us.

Every one of us
has a right to get out here and work, to increase our wealth, to
accomplish things. You have these rights. These are sometimes referred
to as God-given rights. I never found anything in the Bible where
God gave us any rights but that’s up to your beliefs. If you believe
that’s what God did then ok but it is a natural right that exists
in mankind. I don’t know that God gave it to us but in the creation
that God made of mankind He gave us the ability to accomplish things
if that can be converted to a right. That’s sort of stretch of the
imagination, I think, but, yeah, you have in nature the right to
go out there and produce and there is law that says that you have
a right to your own production, that it can’t be interfered with
and yet we have all kinds of taxation that does interfere with it.
Now, we’ve talked about this before. The taxation is limited in
authority. It’s limited to people who receive a privilege from government.
That privilege has to be one that is authorized by government.

By the way, social
security is not an authorized privilege that government can create
so they can’t use that as an excuse. That’s not a governmental authority
that gives them the right to tax as a privilege. So anything based
on the fact that you’re using a social security number is not good
enough to create the privilege that government has the right to
tax. So any taxation of an individual in his private capacity that
has not asked for a particular privilege that government does have
the right to give out and to tax is another breach of the fiduciary
duty.

The definition
of breach of trust ends up by citing a case,
Brun v. Hanson, 103 F.
Rptr 2d, p. 685 and this specific statement that I just read is
from page 699. But 103 F. Rptr 2d, page 685 is where you find the
case. That was a very interesting case.

[caller]Howard, before you close the show today, I had the Howard
Griswold chuckle moment. I had something for you and with your permission
I’d like to read that.

[Howard]Well, go ahead, let’s find another chuckle because some of
the stuff I talk about is so serious that if we didn’t stop once
in a while and make a chuckle out of things we’d probably go a little
batty.

[caller]And this one moves along to the moving violation. A teenager
was stopped for speeding. As the cop approached his car the boy
rolled down his window. ‘I’ve been waiting for you all day,’ the
cop said. ‘Yeah, well, I got here as fast as I could,’ the teen
replied. When the cop stopped laughing he sent the youngster driver
on his way without a ticket.

There’s just one
more and know how you feel so lovingly about pastors and all that
and this one’s the last one for the night here.

A little boy was
waiting for his mother to come out of the grocery store. As he waited
he was approached by a new pastor who asked, ‘can you tell me where
the post office is?’ ‘Sure,’ the boy replied, ‘just go straight
down the street a couple of blocks and turn to your right.’

The pastor thanked
him and said, ‘I’d like you to come to church on Sunday—I’ll show
you how to get to heaven.’ The little boy replied with a chuckle,
‘ah come on, you don’t even know how to get to the post office.’

Ok, well that’s
the Howard Griswold chuckle moment.

[Howard]I’ll add a little chuckle to that with a bit of vulgarity.
There was a young lady up in Pennsylvania who was pulled over by the
Pennsylvania
state police and they wrote her a ticket for speeding. And they
came up to the window of her car, handed the ticket to her and she
said, ‘oh, thank you, is this a ticket to the policeman’s ball?’
And the officer replied, ‘the Pennsylvania State Police don’t have
any balls.’ I said, a little bit funny but a little bit of vulgarity.

Anyway, back to
the seriousness for just a minute.

This case that
was cited here, Brun v. Hanson,
I pulled that many years ago and read it. It started me in the
right direction but it didn’t enlighten me enough to recognize how
to apply it to all kinds of things, especially to government. But
it was a couple of lawyers who engaged in the stealing of the estate
from the heirs that they were handling and they were in breach of
their trust. They were found guilty of it and they had to pay everything
back to the heirs with penalties. The stole the property.

Does that sound
familiar? If it isn’t government stealing the property then it’s
private attorneys that are working for you stealing your property
and it goes on constantly in this country. Anyway, it’s
Brun v. Hanson. That
is an interesting case to read—not very long. It’s 103 F. Rptr 2d,
page 685.

The next one is
breach of trust with fraudulent intent which is larceny after trust.
Larceny means theft, stealing, after trust. And there’s only one
sentence to that, larceny after trust and a case cited,
State v. Owings, and
that is 31 SE Rptr, 2d., page 906.

The original case
was 205 South Carolina at 314 and then the appeal case that stated
that it’s larceny—breach of trust with fraudulent intent is larceny
after trust—is in the court of appeals which is 31 SE Rptr, 2d edition,
page 906. I don’t have that case, I never pulled it.

I have
Brun v. Hanson. And the
definition of breach did not cite any cases. Isn’t that interesting,
a law dictionary that does not cite anything to back up their definition
is a worthless law dictionary and the 7th, 8th
and 9th editions of Blacks Law Dictionary do not cite
any cases to back anything up so they’re worthless dictionaries.

Blacks 4th,
5th and 6th did cite something on a lot of
the definitions but not every one of them. They don’t want to go
far enough to clarify some of these things, specifically enough
that even lawyers could find out what it means much less could the
general public ever get a hold of it. But breach of trust with fraudulent
intent which is larceny after trust was discussed in the
State v. Owings in 31
SE Rptr 2d, p. 906 and breach of trust was discussed at length in
Brun v. Hanson, 103 F.
Rptr 2d, page 685. Now, some people can get into those cites and
pull those things and some people have a terrible time getting a
hold of some of these cases. Call me if you’re having trouble, if
you’re interested enough to try to learn, but I really think we
need to start, if nothing else, talking about this a lot and threatening
to bring these cases against people even if you don’t have the gumption
to do it.

Bring it up and
upset them. Talk to the news media about this. Get on some of these
talk radio programs and bring it up and talk about it. But talk
about it intelligently. Don’t just run off at the mouth. Get copies
of things like what I’m telling you about. If you don’t have Blacks
Law Dictionary and you can’t find it on the internet and it is there
somewhere, then just write to Gemini Investments or call me and
we’ll send you a copy of this page if that’s what you need. We’ll
send you a copy of Brun v.
Hanson. Like I said, I don’t have
State v. Owings. I never
even noticed that one here in the law dictionary before—didn’t read
that far down. See, even I don’t read far enough sometimes. And
most people don’t read far enough and that’s why they have a piece
of the story and not enough to be real strong. Well, this gets stronger
as we get into this because these little bits of information led
us to that Jersey City v.
Hague case which led us to that couple of dozen cases that I’ve
been telling you about that we found in
Am Jur on breach of public
trust and government officials doing the wrong things and being
in breach of the trust. And there are so many things that we can
recognize today that government is doing wrong.

Now, I’m sure you’re
going to get a lot of opposition from a lot of people if you start
going all the way back to the 14th Amendment and declaring
that that was indeed a breach of the trust because it altered the
purpose and intent of the original Constitution because I’m sure
there’s a lot of people that think the 14th Amendment
has been great because it established civil rights and we need civil
rights and all kinds of other garbage you’ll get from some people.
But the fact is it still remains a fact that that amendment was
indeed a breach of the organic Constitution’s intent by the framers
of it and the people who are carrying it through today in Congress
and in the states are co-conspirators to that breach. They’re party
to it. A lot of the problems that we have today are based on the
presumptions created by that 14th Amendment of government’s
right to control and regulate the residents of the state and the
accusation by government that we are all residents within the state
which puts us under their control which, in fact, is a breach of
their fiduciary duty. They have a duty to protect us, not control
us.

[Ed]The breach of trust is in private as well as in government
contracts—correct?

[Howard]Yes, definitely. Any dealing with a lawyer who cheats you
in any way, shape or form—now, charging you for what he does that’s
not cheating you. If he does something and he actually provides
a service that benefits you that’s not cheating you. If he bills
you a whole bunch of money and never went to court and never accomplished
a thing then he’s cheating you. That’s a breach of trust. But if
he accomplishes something you—well, we’ve all got the attitude or
opinion that a man is entitled to his just deserts for his efforts.
And if a lawyer actually goes to court and accomplishes something
for you and you get a benefit out of it he is entitled to be paid
for that—now, maybe not as much as he billed. There’s a funny story
about that. This lawyer was 49 years old and he died and he went
up to the pearly gates and he saw Saint Peter and, of course, you
know how lawyers start running their mouth and talking right away.
He hollered at Saint Peter, he said, ‘this is utterly impossible,
it’s ridiculous, I couldn’t be dead, I’m only 49 years old.’ Saint
Peter said, ‘well, settle down just a minute, let me check the books
here.’ Two seconds later he says, ‘according to the book your billing
record shows that you’re 89 years old.’

[Howard]Ok. In private dealings in such a thing as a contract with
a lawyer to go to court and represent you, if he does not do it
properly then it’s a breach of the trust and lawyers have been sued
for that. There are a number of cases on it including
Brun v. Hanson. They
engaged in stealing the estate and putting it up for auction and
then going to the auction and bidding a low price and making sure
nobody else went there so that they could buy it at the cheap price
and get it for themselves. They stole the estate for way less than
what the value was worth. That’s what that story was all about in
Brun v. Hanson. The American
people are taken advantage of that way by lawyers all the time.
They do not go into court and argue the law properly at all. And
the little boy was absolutely correct, the preacher didn’t even
know his way to the post office, how the hell he’s going to tell
me how to get to heaven?

[caller]You had, once upon a time a few weeks back, had mentioned
that you needed some trust forms for breach of trust and removal
of trustees out of the American
Jurisprudence forms books.

[Howard]I did.

[caller]Did you get all of those forms?

[Howard]I haven’t gotten them yet—no.

[caller]I did find out on eBay here not long ago an
American Jurisprudence
legal forms for trusts and there are some things in here that
look like it might work.

[caller]Yeah, I mean, here a couple of weeks ago they had put all
kinds of different forms books on
American Jurisprudence.
There were about $25 a book. I picked up on the trust one and
I was going to buy another one and they were all gone. Somebody
bought them all up. Ok, I’ll give you a call tomorrow.

[Howard]Do you have my number?

[caller]Yes. If you want, if nothing else, I can mail out the book
to you and you can pull out the forms that you want and mail the
book back to me too.

[Howard]I’d be glad to do that. Yeah. And I would mail it back to
you.

[caller]Which ever way we want to do it. We’ll talk about it tomorrow.

[Howard]Ok, give me a call. If you don’t get me when you first call
try again an hour or two later. I was busy all day today. It’s the
first nice day we’ve had in three weeks that I could get out there
in my fields and do some mowing down of the weeds and starting to
plow and turn the fields up so I’ve been busy out there working
all day today. And at the rate I go I got about two hours work done
and I worked all day to get it done.

Who is the gentleman
that started to ask a question?

[caller]That was me. Thank you. Ok, Mr. Griswold, how about on a
deed of trust attacking that trustee for breaching his fiduciary
duty.

[Howard]Oh, yes, definitely, but you got to carefully read that deed
of trust because, first of all, the deed of trust put the bank in
the beneficiary position and you in the trustee position holding
the property for the bank which is a fraud in the first place. They’re
actually holding your property as collateral in trust for you and
they’ve reversed it in the wording so that they could use it against
you in the future. Then they appoint a…trustee. And they appoint
him as this collection agent, is what he really is. And he proceeds
to use the improper paperwork to steal your property from you. So
he’s definitely in breach of the trust because he has a trust position
as the appointed trustee to protect your interest in the property
that they’re holding as collateral. So, yeah, there’s all kinds
of ways that—see, this would be to answer Ed, this would be one
of the private situations where a breach of trust would apply in
addition to breach of the public trust by government officials.
Yes, they do this all the time and they should be getting sued for
it but we don’t know enough and you’ll never get a lawyer to help
you do this because the lawyers are part of the scam.

[caller]So, Howard, that means the judges are in on the scam and
they’re breaching the public trust.

[Howard]Well, you’ve got to put the judge in a position where he
admits that he knows before you can prove that he breached the public
trust because a judge’s duty as a judge is to judge what’s been
put into the court and if there wasn’t anything put into the court
to defend your side by you or to create a counter-complaint by you
that he can review then he can only rule on what was put in by the
other side. And, of course, if you bring in a bunch of patriot stupid
arguments about your constitutional rights or something like that,
that is irrelevant. He does not breach the public duty by telling
you that you don’t have any constitutional rights because you don’t.
I had a terrible time with some gentleman up in
Maine quite a
number of years ago. He really got frustrated with me. I was up
there doing a seminar and one of the first things I said was, ‘before
we’re done tonight I’m going to teach you that the Constitution
does not apply to the American people. It is the government’s document.
It is for them, not for us. And I started to go into the preamble
and explain the English language and the preamble says, ‘We the
People of the
United States do ordain this Constitution
for ourselves and our posterity.’ Did it say, we the people of America? No, it
didn’t. It said, ‘We the People of this corporation called the
United States of America
did it for themselves. It applies to them. It does not apply to
us. Well, this guy got terribly upset with me, ‘that’s our Constitution—we
did it—it’s ours’ I said, ‘no, it’s not. These people who put it
together to establish a business called government did it for themselves
but in it they set up certain restrictions on the things that they
could do and certain duties that they had to protect us. And that’s
their duty. When they don’t do their duty they breach it. They violate
it. Oh, he was so frustrated he actually walked out of the seminar
and on his way out I said to him, ‘sir, if you can go to the library
and prove that I’m wrong I’d be more than happy to talk to you about
it.’ He gave me a dirty look and he walked out of the meeting.A couple of weeks later…

[caller]Why do they keep on insisting that we read the Constitution
and understand it.

[Howard]Well, we should. George Washington made that statement that
everybody must understand the law and the law starts with the Constitution
and if we don’t we’ll not be able to retain our republican form
of government. Well, the republican form of government is gone.
It’s vanished because the people have cooperated with government
and joined in with government benefits and services. So we have
destroyed it ourselves but anyway, let me finish that story about
this gentleman. A couple of weeks later he called me up, he says,
‘I apologize.’ I said, ‘you don’t have to apologize to me—I never
got angry. I don’t get mad about what people say and do. You don’t
have to apologize.’ He says, ‘well, I went to the library and I
tried my best to prove that you’re wrong,’ and he said, ‘you got
to look up this case called
Barron v. the City of Baltimore.
The Supreme Court said that the Constitution applies to the government
that it created and to no one else. He said, ‘you were right.’ By
golly, that’s exactly what the Supreme Court said in 1833, I believe,
was the Barron v. Baltimore
case. And the Supreme Court justices reiterated that with no
dissemination {dissention?}
of any kind about it that absolutely the Constitution applied only
to the government that it created and to no one else. It didn’t
apply to the American people. It applied to the government but the
government has a duty under it to protect us. This is why you need
to understand the Constitution. When they don’t do what the Constitution
says then they’re breaching it and they’re liable for it. According
to the law of trusts a trustee is personally liable over any wrong
at all the trustee does. All government personnel are in a trustee
position. They are to be looking out for us, the beneficiaries,
of this public trust called the Constitution and the government.
They’re breaching it right and left. This deficit that they created
that spending of money without having it coming in from the right
sources, the implication of taxes to get it from the people that
they have no right to get it from, these are all breaches of their
public trust. So, indeed, you do need to understand the Constitution
and it’s a lot more to it than just reading it. Geez, I read the
thing about twenty-five years ago or better, maybe thirty, must
be thirty years ago I read it and I’mgoing to tell you, sweetheart, I didn’t understand what it
said. I could pronounce the words but I had no idea of the meaning
and intent and purpose of it until I studied and studied and studied
over the years different aspects of it, different parts of it—looked
up court cases resolving constitutional issues, looked up books
on the Constitution written by professors of law explaining the
meaning of certain parts of the Constitution. It’s taken me years
to digest all of it and recognize as much as I recognize today.
It wasn’t easy. Of course, if education never taught us anything
worth knowing, we would be much more enlightened about these things
but education does not teach us things that we should know. It should
teach us at least where to find the post office if not how to get
to heaven but I don’t think they know how to find the post office
or get to heaven.

[caller]Well, they actually perpetuate the myth that the Constitution
was written for the people.

[Howard]Yeah, indeed they do. As a matter of fact, Dave DeReamer
started an organization called We the People and he didn’t realize
when he started that, that We the People did not mean us, the people
in America. He’s learned it since, he realizes
it but he still calls one of his websites, We the People and there’s
another website out there by another organization called We the
People and we really believe that we’re the people because we can’t
even read English.

[Howard]One of the silly little things that I came upon in my studies
over the years was in the
Maryland
laws for the State of Maryland. It says that the right to vote is an
enfranchised right granted to you by the government. An enfranchised
right, what do I want an enfranchised right from government for
unless I’m willing to be subservient to the government in return
for that franchised right? Many, many times—yeah it’s a privilege—many,
many times I’ve said if you don’t work for the General Motors Corporation
would you bother to go all the way up to Michigan to Detroit to
the meeting that they have to elect a new president for the General
Motors Corporation? You don’t care, do you, because you don’t work
for them? It doesn’t matter who the president is to you. It only
matters to the people who work for General Motors Corporation who
gets elected president. They should all show up and vote for their
president of their corporation. Well, there’s no difference between
that and the United States or the state government because if you
don’t work for it nothing they do really applies to you in your
private capacity unless you stick your stupid nose in there and
try to tell them what to do by becoming a voter. Then you’ve accepted
the franchised right from them and made yourself liable under their
laws. Why would you do that? The American people have no purpose
whatsoever in voting for anything related to government. The only
people that have a purpose would be the people in government because—now,
there’s a court case that we’ve quoted many times in our discussions,
Chicago Railroad Company
v. Yakima School District in Colorado. Colorado Supreme Court ruled on this
case and stated that the codes, rules, statutes, regulations of
government apply to the juristic society and when you look up the
word, juristic society in the law dictionary the definition is one
word, government. It applies to the government. All of their codes,
rules and regulations apply to government. If you’re not part of
government or the property is not owned by the government the laws,
rules, regulations, taxation and everything else the government
can do cannot be applied to your private property even if you gave
it to them to hold for you in trust by registration they have a
trust duty in the form of a constructive trust then to hold your
property for your benefit, you as the beneficiary and them as the
trustees to protect your property and instead they tax you and then
take your property away when you don’t pay the taxes and steal it
from you. Fits right under
Brun v. Hanson, breach
of trust. It is important that we understand the Constitution, we
understand what government has a power and a right to do and what
government has no power and no right to do. It is very important
that we understand this and it is not taught. I remember back in
Catholic elementary school when I was a little kid that the nuns,
the sisters of St. Joseph, wonderful ladies
but very, very strict and very good teachers but they taught us
what they were taught to teach us. And they taught us that it was
a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Well,
that sure leads me to believe that they’re talking about us, doesn’t
it? That’s certainly deceptive but the fact is it’s a government
of the people of the government, by the people of the government,
for the people of the government, and the hell with you stupid people
in America.

[caller]I thought the people created the government.

[Howard]That’s exactly what I’ve just told you. The teaching was
that it’s a government of the People, by the People and for the
People. That makes you think that we created it, doesn’t it? That’s
not true. Certain select people got together and created it for
themselves. It was by them, for them, not for us. We are not a party
to the government. It is not our government. I hear a lot of people
say that our government did this. No, it’s not your government.
They stand by themselves. They are a completely different nation
than we are. The doors are open at all times. The doors to government
are open. What was that case? The grain elevator, that’s the one,
the grain elevator case where the guy put his corn in the grain
elevator and was dealing with government who owned the grain elevator
and he argued with them about the price that they paid him or something
like that or that they didn’t give him the benefits he was supposed
to get and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. Part of what
the court said was he didn’t have to deal with the government. That
government was open at all times for people to come in and do business
with them but they didn’t have to. And at any time that you were
doing business you could withdraw from doing business with the government.
Munn v. Illinois.

[Dave]And the same principle as in the preamble to the Declaration
of Independence that government obtains its just powers with the
consent of the governed. They have to get your consent otherwise
it’s involuntary servitude and unlawful, unconstitutional. It has
to be voluntary. Even Internal Revenue admits they collect the income
tax under voluntary compliance. Once they trick you into volunteering
into the regulated enterprise by contract now you must comply with
the terms of the contract that you just volunteered into.

[Howard]Well, it comes right back to the law of contracts. Once you
make a contract you’re bound by the contract but you didn’t have
to contract but we did. We got duped into all this stuff. I’ve talked
about the relationship of this to a story in the Bible. In the Book
of Daniel there’s a story about King Nebuchadnezzar having a dream
about a statue. It had a head of gold (Babylon) and a neck of silver
(Meado Persians) and chest of bronze (Greeks) and [iron legs] (Romans)
down to the feet of iron and clay (Holy Roman
Empire). Each one of these different minerals, valuable
ores, represented a different empire during the course of history.
And this was written many centuries ago (prophesy of Daniel which
came true and is unfolding today) long before there was a United States. The
United States
is a dual system of government according to the framers and their
explanation of it. And the dual system was that the government is
a democracy, self-regulating, and the people in their private capacity
are self-regulating. That’s where the concept of a republican form
of government comes from. The people are self-regulating. They regulate
their own lives and they have no right to stick their nose in what
business the government does and the government likewise regulates
itself and has no right to stick its nose into the business of private
people. That’s the difference that emanates from the concept of
a republican form of government but that’s not going to work and
it didn’t work. And that story of the statue of the iron and clay
in the feet says that the clay eventually pulls away from supporting
the iron feet and the statue became unstable and collapsed and Babylon
was destroyed (as well as the Medo-Persians, the Greek Empire, the
Roman Empire and the now the EU is starting to break up) never to
rise again. Well, the feet of iron and clay represents the government
being the iron and the clay was the people in their private capacity
who have been supporting it out of stupidity. But we’re starting
to wake up, we’re beginning to overcome our stupidity. We have the
capability within the brain to do that. We just cannot—to put out
the effort. But slowly we’re being forced to put out the effort
in recent years and learn more and understand it and many, many,
many of the masses of this country are pulling away and not supporting
government and, boy, is it upsetting government—they’re losing control
they used to have. As the clay, the people, pull away from supporting
the government which is represented by the iron it will become unstable
and eventually it will collapse. I just told you about how it will
end up collapsing.

[caller]That case…is that
Boyd v. US ?

[Howard]That’s right in line with
Boyd v. United States—yes.

[caller]Howard, if you file a complaint for breach of trust does
the judge automatically recognize in the case that that forms a
constructive trust and if he does not what recourse do you have
beyond that?

[Howard]Well now, wait a minute, a constructive trust arises when
one person gives another person property to hold for them. That’s
where a constructive trust comes from. The government under this
constitutional authority is a trust. It has nothing to do with a
constructive trust. Anything that the government does that breaches
the authorities that were setup in the Constitution would be a breach
of trust. It would have nothing to do with a constructive trust.
Now, the registration of your property such as your puppy dog or
your land or your children’s body through birth certificate registration
is the giving of the property to another to hold for you and that
would establish a constructive trust and allow you to sue for the
recovery of the property under a constructive trust. Do you understand
the difference.

[caller]Yeah, I see it—thank you.

[Howard]Ok. S

[caller]
How do we tie in the breach of trust, if possible that is,
to the oaths of office of our elected officials…?

[Howard]Well, that’s exactly where it fits. You have no authority
to do anything about a breach of the oath of office because if you
look in the law books the authority to prosecute a public official
for breach of his oath rests with the attorney general’s office.
The attorney general breaches the oath all the time. Do you think
he’s going to go prosecute some other government scum for doing
it? Not likely. That’s why we don’t get anywhere with this oath
of office stuff. But the oath was to uphold the Constitution and
if he’s not upholding it then he’s breaching the trust. And as I
read to you out of that New Jersey court case,
Driscol v. Burlington Bristol
Bridge Company the court said that a well aroused population
can do something about these problems by bringing the case in their
own name against government officials that do wrong. Well, we’re
finally learning this stuff. It’s way too late. I don’t think we’ll
save this government. I think it’s going to collapse and I really
don’t want to see that. The purpose of this government under the
Constitution was phenomenal. This is a great government. I am not
anti-government at all. I’m anti the corruption of the people that
are in there. But I think it’s too late. I think that the Biblical
story of the collapse of the final Babylon being the United States
will come about. We can’t stop it, it is going to collapse. But
in the meanwhile we can sure stop them from harassing each and every
one of you by you realizing how easy it is to put together a breach
of the public trust case against them. Now, the hard thing is that
you’re not going to get very good results if you try to do this
in forma pauper, without paying for it. You got to scrape up the
two or three hundred dollars that the court wants for a filing fee.
But somebody told me about something very interesting the other
day and this really fits the law of contract. This fellow had a
case going on in the court and the opposing party which was government
put in a motion to dismiss his case against this government official
and he went to the bank that he deals with and he got the bank to
give him a photocopy of the front and back of the check that he
wrote to the court for the filing fee to file this case and he took
it with him to the court anticipating that the judge was going to
rule in favor of the State because the judge is part of the State
and he’s going to try to protect the State from you and I making
these suits as much as he possibly can. And what this fellow did
was when the judge started to talking about the motion to dismiss
he said, ‘you can’t do that.’ And the judge said, ‘what do you mean
I can’t to that? I’m the judge. I’ll decide what can be done.’ He
said, ‘no, you won’t.’ And he gave him a copy. He handed it to the
bailiff and said, ‘take this up there and show the judge.’ So the
bailiff took it up and showed the judge both front and back of the
check and he said to the judge, ‘now, I paid a fee and you accepted
my fee which constitutes a contract. Now, you have to hear this
case all the way to the end. You cannot dismiss it because we have
a contract between us to resolve this complaint. The judge didn’t
dismiss the case. He let it go to trial and proceeded. Now, I haven’t
heard the results of what happened in the trial. I don’t even know
if it all worked out yet. But he did prevent them from dismissing
the case because he showed that they created a contract with him
by accepting his money and accepting the complaint to hear the complaint.
We can stop these motions to dismiss very quickly with that kind
of knowledge.

[Dave]Then there is a case that proves that you can sue public
officials. Do you remember
Mitchell v. United States,the Tucker Act?

03:13:01.602.

The officials are able to be sued for money damages now.

[Howard]And they have been for years. That’s an old act. That act
goes all the way back to not long after the Civil War. And there’s
another case, Petition for Redress. T.O.M.E. v. the District Court,
677 Pacific Rptr 2d., a 1984 case. It resolved the issue that a
lawsuit is a petition for redress of a grievance. And
United States v. Hylton
, 710 F Rptr 2d, page 1106 againsaid the same thing. The filing of a lawsuit is a petition
for redress so they can’t come back at you for filing a lawsuit
and say that you threatened them in any way and that’s some bull
crap that some of these lawyers and judges have been coming off,
‘oh, he threatened me.’ What do you think you’re above a lawsuit,
you morons? No, a lawsuit is a petition for redress of a grievance.
It’s not a threat. Now, some people can do it and watch out for
some of this patriot information. If you use some of that information
it will look like a terrorist threat. You got to be careful. You
got to study things like what we’re talking about here about breach
of trust and the fact that government is a trust and study the information
I’ve been putting out of the cases that say that government is in
a trust position and back your case up with a little short brief
in support in support of it that shows a couple of those cases.
They can’t come after you for doing anything wrong or accuse you
of anything because you stopped them dead with things like
United States
v. Hylton. The filing of a lawsuit is a petition for a redress.
It is not a threat of any kind against the judge or the lawyer or
a politician or anybody else.

[Dave]The threat is their own guilt in their own mind.

[Howard]I agree, Dave, you’re 100% right. I think some of them are
decent enough to recognize that their activity is very criminal.
They have that much decency because there’s always positive and
negative in everything, all of us. Our creation by our Creator was
all based on positive and negative charges. Everything that physically
exists including the energy of the mind and the thoughts of the
mind are all based on positive and negative energy. And to some
extent in order to physically exist we all have to have both positive
and negative charges. It’s just that some of us have more negative
and some of us have more positive. And the ones who have more negative,
they will do the criminal acts, they will do the evil wrongful things
to people but they know in their heart, they know in the back of
their mind that it’s not right but they think they can get away
with it. And by golly because positive people like you people out
here who are interested in learning about this have done nothing
about it. Indeed they are getting away with it.

The Tucker Act
goes way back into the late 1800s, sometime right after the Civil
War some time right after the Civil War between 1860 and 1889 or
somewhere in there and there were a couple of amendments to it but
it was based on the fact that government had no right to injure
the people and it waived their sovereign immunity as they normally
try to stand on against lawsuits for damages by the United States
against the people. So we have the right to sue them including all
of their officials and we should be suing the official in his private
capacity. It’s the official who is the trustee who has breached
the trust. It’s not the government. The government doesn’t do anything.
The government is a corporation, it’s a fiction, it doesn’t move
unless it is moved by people. All corporations work that way. That’s
why government is labeled as a perfect corporation in
Corpus Juris Secundum
in the explanation of government. It says they’re a perfect corporation
simply because they’re a fiction, they’re inert. The government
can do nothing. The people have to move the government to make it
accomplish anything and it’s the corruption of the people that causes
the problems. Honesty and decency in government we would have probably
the most wonderful country in the entire world. We used to and we
still would if we didn’t have so much corruption in there.

[Ed]Howard, how do you get into private capacity?

[Howard]You sue them that way. You sue the individual in government
in his private capacity for his breach of the public trust from
his duty that he had as a public servant. He’s the one that did
the wrong. The government didn’t do it. Now, he might be able to
plead stupidity, he didn’t know any better. But I just read something
to you about under breach of trust—it doesn’t matter. What was it?
It doesn’t matter if it was through negligence or arising through
a mere oversight or forgetfulness, it’s still a breach of the trust.
I didn’t know is not a good enough excuse. ‘This is what I was told.’
Well, so what, you should have studied further and found out whether
you were told right. We’ve been told a lot, haven’t we? But is it
right? How do we really know what’s right unless we start studying
and finding out what the purpose and intent was of things? Like
the Bible lays out the purpose and intent of God’s but there’s a
whole bunch of stories in there that were corrupted by the writings
that were done by man that are in there and it corrupted the purpose.
But the purpose is laid out and spelled out in the Bible of what
God’s creation was all about and what was intended. And we’re not
doing it, we’re not following the purpose. We’re definitely going
in the wrong direction as far as Our Creator and having to face
the Creator one day and answer to Him for what we’ve done or haven’t
done correctly and the same thing applies to governments. Governments
write these things up and usually it’s some decent people that put
it together because they’re reorganizing the last corruption and
getting rid ofa lot
of the corruption that occurred in the last government which is
what happened here in this country. They got rid of the corruption
of the English kings {and substituted
their own, not a great deal later} and they set it up for
the protection of people’s private property and private liberty.
And government was supposed to be self-regulating and they aren’t.
They’re regulating us, it’s the Harry Reids {and
a huge gallery before him}. So they’ve corrupted the intent
and purpose of this government or quite a few of the other ones,
Barack Obama. {see logocracy, government
by huge lies}. I don’t know if he knows any better or not
but if he does he’s going against what he knows and going along
with the system and helping to continue the corruption {and
destruction} {see the Frankish
Khazarian program in Sign
of the Scorpion} and it doesn’t matter whether he intends
to do it or he’s doing it by negligence or forgetfulness, he’s still
guilty of breach of the public trust. {The
Frankish Khazarians aren’t too much into trust—see history.}
Boy, that speech he gave yesterday, if somebody recorded that speech
they could use it as evidence to prove that he’s in breach of the
public trust and have him removed from office but no lawyer’s going
to do that. Remember, the President gets the privilege of appointing
new officers under his four-year tender as president and one of
the officers he gets to appoint is the attorney general which means
he owes a favor back in return for the appointment. So do you think
the attorney general is going to bring charges against the President
that appointed him? We are such believers and day dreamers that
we actually believe some guy in a sleigh with a big white beard
comes around on Christmas time (Nimrod’s
birthday) and brings all kinds of gifts from Jesus yet. And
we believe that, I think, it’s the 24th of this month
is Easter (Ishtar) and we actually
believe that there’s an Easter bunny that comes around and lays
eggs and they’re all different colors (anything
to hide the real meaning of the resurrection).

[Dave]No, that’s the great pumpkin.

[caller]If you’re ever in a case, you don’t go in there—like say,
for instance, a cop violates the 4th Amendment, ….that’s
what we don’t have—rights. When you go to court you don’t say to
that judge…he breached the public trust by violating the 4th
Amendment. You wouldn’t phrase it like that. You would just say
he breached the public trust with his actions…?

[Howard]You know what, I think that would be mighty scary if you
did bring that up in a traffic case. It would be mighty scary to
them that you even know or understand any of this but I don’t think
it would do you any good. They would go on and impose the fine against
you anyway and hope to hell you didn’t know enough to bring the
case against them. If you’re going to do something what we’ve been
thinking about—and see, I can’t do all this by myself. I’m one person.
I don’t have the money to pay a staff to help put all this stuff
together. But over time what I’d like to do is put together a breach
of trust case for a traffic case against the cop that brought the
case and sue him. I’ll bet you that if you do that he isn’t going
to show up in court. But the problem is that it costs you $250 to
$350 today to file cases in these different courts around the country.
The traffic ticket might have only been for $75. Are you going to
spend $250 to $350 to file a case against the cop who is only going
to cost you $75 if you go to court and lose?

[Howard]It’ll help you to learn what you can do when you do have
to go into court.That
website is based on years of the research that our group has done
and not just Howard Griswold. There’s no way I could have read and
researched all this stuff that we know about. Other people have
helped me to find this stuff—not all my work. I don’t deserve all
the credit for it.

NOTICE: The information on this page was brought
to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone
such as you might also profit by having access to it. If
you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS
SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you.

Freedom-School
is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "Freedom-School.com"
- "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of Freedom-School.com used throughout.
"You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the
fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served
is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for
use.The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended
to be, legal advice.Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful
action.Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere
to, support anddefend all Law which is particularly applicable.Information
is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS"
- continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.
Support is not offered.

Freedom School
is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation asthere
is no charge for things presented.Freedom-School.com site relies on
this
memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof
to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal
admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which
are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any
and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT
AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT
BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that
any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website
are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have
the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof
under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the
due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to
the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons,
questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling
presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular
claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and
prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything
on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to
correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Freedom-School.com
is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.In
addition, users may not use Freedom-School.com to engage in, facilitate
or further unlawful conduct;use the service in any way, or manner, that
harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;damage,
disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected
to the site)or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas,
united States of America, using Texas Common Law.All parts of this contract
apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot
enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and
we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent
of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change.
This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the
service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use
of the Freedom-School.com site. If there exists some manner of thing missing
we do not forfeit our right to that thing aswe reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in
part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this
contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to
do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or
permanently, any rights to use the Freedom-School.com site or material contained
within.

GOOGLE
ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable
information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com site, we do
collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve
our Web site design and our online presence.Visitors to this site who
have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of
information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like:
the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you
are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using;
your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like
the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed;
the time of your visit to the Freedom-School.com site; the pages you visit
on the Freedom-School.com site; the amount of time you spend on each page
of the Freedom-School.com site and referring site information. In addition
to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared
with Google. For more information on Google´s privacy policies, visit:
http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can
disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much
like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying
individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions.
The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit
occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site
referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view
a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they
can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is
used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites.
Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy
policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To
disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is
being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."

Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

If your copyrighted material has been posted on the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.

The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:

* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in Freedom-School.com search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)

Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at Freedom-School.com

Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.